To me, it seems like whenever people talk about this guy nowadays, they talk about the injuries and the early retirement, as well as that whole fiasco with Bobby Clarke.

I think it's unfortunate that people forget that there's never been a player like him in NHL history. A guy with that size and that skill, who was a complete nightmare to play against since he could beat you in so many ways. At one time, he was the best player in the world and had one if the highest point per game ratios in league history. Also, he was a great fighter, and could hold his own even against enforcers.

The guy also had a highlight reel full of devastating bodychecks as well as finesse goals. How many guys in league history can you say that about?

I was wondering what you guys think about his place in league history and what you thought of him as a player? I didn't necessarily intend this to be a Hall of Fame debate, but feel free to discuss that also. Personally, I think he should get in, since he's got more credentials than someone like Cam Neely, who was elected recently.

For about a 6 year span there wasnt a more dominant forward in the NHL. I will never forget the World Juniors when he broke about 3 collarbones with legal hits and ended up having so much room on the ice that he could do whatever he wanted.

Back when I started playing hockey, I would always pick #88 because I loved the way Lindros played. Granted, I hate when I see kids rocking numbers like that now, but gimme a break, I was like 6 or 7. It was a very sad day when he stopped playing.

I think based upon many of the weak players that have been inducted recently that Lindros has a "hall worthy" resume. That being said, I have a problem with the hall of fame's weak standards, and lack of pre-NHL Europeans (Kharlamov and Tretiak being the only two). Even tho it is a "hockey" hall of fame, it is entirely NHL focused...

The Hall of Fame, IMO, is also pretty damn generous to cup champs, and largely ignores players who couldn't get there (this is a team sport, isn't it? So why rob a player of an individual honor, based upon a team's performance). Some may not agree, but guys like Gillies, Dick Duff, and Glenn Anderson are only in there because of team accomplishments (Anderson being particularly ridiculous to me). And yet arguably the best goal scorer of the late 90s doesn't get inclusion (Bure literally scored 30% of the Islanders' goals in 00-01)?

I also think there are a number of guys that deserve inclusion over Lindros that have been passed over in previous seasons. Ciccerelli, Bure, and a slew of Russians, to name a few... Based upon the guys presently in the hall, yeah, i think Lindros' accomplishments deserve recognition, but I also think the hall needs to toughen up its criteria for induction.... lets not forget how comically overrepresented the original 6 era is too.

If you take away Eric Lindros' last four seasons, he still has more points than Cam Neely, in 100 fewer games, with a comparable number of goals. That doesn't even account for the fact that Lindros actually won major awards and stuff. Lindros joined the league and was instantly one of the league's best players. He remained so until injuries caused him to have to miss large portions of seasons and then retire at the age of 34, having played only 760 games in his career. There was never a point in Neely's career where he was better than Lindros was at any point before his second year in New York when he was suffering massively from the concussions and other injuries.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic.""I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

One thing that Cam Neely does have on Lindros is the season where he scored 50 goals in 50 games. Granted it wasn't 50 games for the team at that point, but for Neely he only played 50 games that year because of injury so some people still give it to him. 50 goals in 50 games is a huge benchmark for a player to reach.

One thing that Cam Neely does have on Lindros is the season where he scored 50 goals in 50 games. Granted it wasn't 50 games for the team at that point, but for Neely he only played 50 games that year because of injury so some people still give it to him. 50 goals in 50 games is a huge benchmark for a player to reach.

50 goals in 49 games is pretty amazing, but it's not an 'official' "50 in 50" because it wasn't done in his team's first 50 games, which is the criteria.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic.""I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

If you take away Eric Lindros' last four seasons, he still has more points than Cam Neely, in 100 fewer games, with a comparable number of goals. That doesn't even account for the fact that Lindros actually won major awards and stuff. Lindros joined the league and was instantly one of the league's best players. He remained so until injuries caused him to have to miss large portions of seasons and then retire at the age of 34, having played only 760 games in his career. There was never a point in Neely's career where he was better than Lindros was at any point before his second year in New York when he was suffering massively from the concussions and other injuries.

Exactly, this is what I don't understand. How can someone even attempt to compare Neely's stats with Lindros's? Lindros ppg = 1.14 vs. Neely's 0.96. Where is the comparison. And as you suggest, if you don't count the last few years that Lindros shouldn't have been playing due to health reasons, his career ppg stat is downright scary. The guy dominated the league when he was healthy, Neely never, ever came close to doing that.

Seems like some here question whether Lindros is worthy and at the same time think it's insane that Bure is not in. Help me understand why Bure is so much more deserving. Bure was a better goal scorer, no question, but he has less career points, worse ppg stat and doesn't have the Hart and Pearson awards that Lindros does. Not saying Lindros deserves it more than Bure, but to think that Bure is that much more deserving is a bit of a joke if you ask me.

I'm not sure I buy the "pick least deserving player in the Hall and compare" argument. If that's how we're going to do it, all that's going to do if further crapify things over time. You don't like Neely and Anderson being in? Well, get ready for legions of similarly-qualified guys who did the absolute minimum, if others think that way.

To me, it's sort of like when jersey retirement comes up, the old "if you have to make the argument, the answer is no" line. I realize that's not the HOF's philosophy, but to me, "should he" and "will he" are two different questions. I'm inclined to say "no" and "yes."

That said, Lindros was flat-out dominant for a few years, no argument whatsoever on that point.

When comparing points and PPG - remember that Neely played most of his career in a much higher scoring era, while Lindros played a good amount in the dead puck era... which makes Lindros' edge there even more significant.

Lindros really is twice the player Cam Neely was, though I will say Neely stepped up in the playoffs 'more' than Lindros.

Finally, Neely is not an 'excuse' for Lindros to get in, as Lindros is a much better player, but the bar does not have to be set at Neely either -- as he is in there for a lot of intangibles outside of his stats.

Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

I'm not sure I buy the "pick least deserving player in the Hall and compare" argument. If that's how we're going to do it, all that's going to do if further crapify things over time. You don't like Neely and Anderson being in? Well, get ready for legions of similarly-qualified guys who did the absolute minimum, if others think that way.

To me, it's sort of like when jersey retirement comes up, the old "if you have to make the argument, the answer is no" line. I realize that's not the HOF's philosophy, but to me, "should he" and "will he" are two different questions. I'm inclined to say "no" and "yes."

That said, Lindros was flat-out dominant for a few years, no argument whatsoever on that point.

Lindros had a PPG of over 1.3 before his last four seasons, and finished with a PPG of 1.14. That puts him between Bryan Trottier and Phil Esposito. His PPG before the injuries took their toll is virtually identical to that of Marcel Dionne, and well ahead of Esposito. Lindros was far more physically dominant than any of those guys, and only Trottier played better defense.

Yes, Lindros played a far shorter career, so PPG is hard to use as a comparison tool. But his career was shortened because he was one of if not the most singly dominant player in the league for a period of several years, so defensemen generally keyed on him and he took tons of physical abuse.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic.""I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

To me, it seems like whenever people talk about this guy nowadays, they talk about the injuries and the early retirement, as well as that whole fiasco with Bobby Clarke.

I think it's unfortunate that people forget that there's never been a player like him in NHL history. A guy with that size and that skill, who was a complete nightmare to play against since he could beat you in so many ways. At one time, he was the best player in the world and had one if the highest point per game ratios in league history. Also, he was a great fighter, and could hold his own even against enforcers.

The guy also had a highlight reel full of devastating bodychecks as well as finesse goals. How many guys in league history can you say that about?

I was wondering what you guys think about his place in league history and what you thought of him as a player? I didn't necessarily intend this to be a Hall of Fame debate, but feel free to discuss that also. Personally, I think he should get in, since he's got more credentials than someone like Cam Neely, who was elected recently.

I don't think they should hand out HOF nominations like candy. He was dominant for a blip. Never won a Cup. Was swept in the Finals against a team that he was supposed to punish into the ground. The guy had ZERO longevity. Had off-ice issues with his father as his agent.

Forsberg made a bigger overall impact on the league. Lindros was scary for a few years. Handing out nominations for what could have/should have been isn't what the HOF is about.

I don't think they should hand out HOF nominations like candy. He was dominant for a blip. Never won a Cup. Was swept in the Finals against a team that he was supposed to punish into the ground. The guy had ZERO longevity. Had off-ice issues with his father as his agent.

Forsberg made a bigger overall impact on the league. Lindros was scary for a few years. Handing out nominations for what could have/should have been isn't what the HOF is about.

I never said anything about what should have been. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame for what he's already done. I hate to use Neely again as a comparison, but when the league voted him in, they opened the door for these things. Your description of Lindros was exactly what Neely accomplished, minus the individual awards and best player in the world status.

Forsberg was a better set up man than Lindros, but Lindros was a more dangerous all around offensive force. Also, he was a lot more physical and scary to play against. Furthermore, Forsberg never had to carry a team like Lindros did. The Flyers had some other good players, but he was by far the best. I don't think Forsberg at his best was better than Lindros at his best, but I'm sure many will disagree.